Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick  You will find in me an admirer of science, Lloyd, but to specifically claim success at a location where there is no scientific success to show for is a rather weak offer, especially in light of my scientific claim. |
Fredrick, IMO, you have offered no scientific claim, that can be clearly understood, from the required fundamental formal framework. Such a framework would require the distinct separations mentioned, in many of my posts, with actual substances/objects, as its base fundamental... Yes, you admit to such separation, yet your framework, seems to always join, the yet un-joinable, with too much abstractness... If you were to study America's greatest mathematician/philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce, I think you would see your mistakes. He is actually the author of first higher order logics, and graphed set theory fundamentals, which Cantor just happened to found his ideas on... If you studied Peirce, you'd see why the abstracts, and abstract maths must be categorized, properly and separately, as he did... Peirce was the first to fully rationalize numbers between 1 and 0... Frege, Cantor, Russel and Godel, etc., were later, and both founded their higher logic and higher maths on his framework of clearly graphed logic operands... Peirce wrote his original work, as early as the 1860,s... He's the practical son of one of America's finest school's math professors...
BTW, I have made no claims of success, of any toe, as you seem to state. All my work is premised on the incompleteness, and highly
possible completenesses, of present understanding... I have no knowledge of a completed toe, yet___just pieces...
Lloyd